Leveraging Moya, Whatsapp and Online Discussion Forum To Support Students at An Open and Distance E-Learning University

Leveraging MoyaMA, WhatsApp and Online Discussion Forum to
Support Students at an Open and Distance e-Learning University
Chaka Chaka, Tlatso Nkhobo and Mirriam Lephalala

University of South Africa, South Africa
chakachaka8@gmail.com
nkhobti@unisa.ac.za
lephammk@unisa.ac.za
DOI: 10.34190/JEL.18.6.003
Abstract: This paper reports on a study that integrated two instant messaging applications (Moya Messenger App and
WhatsApp) and a myUnisa’s online discussion forum (ODF), and utilised them as tools to support student learning at an open
and distance e-learning university in South Africa. The participants in this study were 41 undergraduate education students
enrolled for an undergraduate English Studies module. Employing a case study research design, the study utilised voluntary
sampling to select its participants, and set out to answer three research questions. Data were collected through the three
afore-mentioned tools. To this effect, the study made the following observations. First, both the instructor and students
were able to engage in asynchronous and synchronous scaffolding using Moya Messenger App. This included engaging in
features of scaffolding such as orientation, coaching, conceptual scaffolding and meta-cognitive scaffolding, largely by the
instructor. Second, the instructor used Moya Messener App to engage in presence teaching, while students utilised it to
engage in presence learning. Third, students utilised WhatsApp to produce short synchronous formal essays based on a
compare and contrast essay writing activity. Fourth and last, students used myUnisa’s ODF to produce meta-content
reflective writing about the module.
Keywords: ODeL, online learning tools, mobile learning tools, Moya Messenger App WhatsApp, myUnisa’s ODF
1. Introduction
The use of online and mobile learning tools to support students in an open and distance learning (ODL) context
is one of the most vexed issues with which this sector of higher education (HE) continually has to grapple
(Barnatt, 2001; Tait, 2014). This is even more so for an open and distance e-learning (ODeL) institution such as
the University of South Africa (UNISA) (Baloyi, 2014; Chaka and Nkhobo, 2019a, 2021; Minnaar, 2011). Utilising
online learning tools, or using mobile learning tools to support students in a face-to-face HE context is one thing,
while employing either type of learning tools for the same purpose in an ODeL context is quite another.. But,
what is indisputable across higher education institutions (HEIs) is that the usage of learning tools (online or
mobile) is not an exclusive preserve of ODeL institutions alone, notwithstanding the fact that such tools should
serve as the bedrock for deploying student support at these institutions (Ferreira and Venter, 2011; Tait, 2014).
Therefore, within the ecosystem of learning tools, integrating online and mobile learning tools for student
support purposes in the ODeL arena is not only essential but also indispensable (Tait, 2014; Chaka and Nkhobo,
2021). Doing so is especially relevant in the era in which there is a plethora of learning tools or applications
(apps) (Chaka and Nkhobo, 2021). To this effect, the idea of integrating online and mobile learning tools for the
purpose of supporting students becomes even more crucial for an ODeL institution such as the University of
South Africa (UNISA), which is a mega ODeL institution (Liebenberg, Chetty and Prinsloo, 2012) boasting students
with diverse demographics drawn from various geographies. The manner in which these two sets of student
support tools can be integrated at an ODeL level varies. Each set with its related tools can be used on its own,
or tools from each set can be blended into either set. In addition, most online learning tools are often deployed
on walled platforms such as learning management systems (Maboe, 2017; Ng’ambi et al., 2016), while most
mobile learning tools are normally delivered from mobile devices as part of a bring your own device (BYOD)
approach (Chaka, 2012; 2015a; 2015b; Farley, et al., 2015; Ng’ambi et al., 2016; Lillejord et al., 2018; Mathew
and Ebelelloanya, 2016; Sung, Chang and Liu, 2016; Wang, Chen and Khan, 2014).
Which of the two deployment approaches serves ODeL student support better is a moot point, as each of them
has its merits and demerits. For example, online student learning support tools offered within an LMS
environment or within a virtual learning environment (VLE) are convenient since they are often provided as a
fit-for-purpose suite of tools. However, more often than not, they are enclosed in university firewalls.
Additionally, they may not be easily accessed from some of the mobile devices owned by students. Most
ISSN 1479-4403 494 ©ACPIL
Reference this paper: Chaka, C., Nkhobo, T., and Lephalala, M., 2020. Leveraging MoyaMA, WhatsApp and Online Discussion
Forum to Support Students at an Open and Distance e-Learning University. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 18(6), pp.
494-515, available online at www.ejel.org
crucially, some of the tools proffered in a suite format may not necessarily be the ones preferred by students
(Chaka, 2019b; Lillejord et al., 2018; Sung, Chang and Liu, 2016; Tait, 2014). This is likely to lead to low uptake,
or to their being under-used by students (Maboe, 2017). Similarly, mobile student learning support tools are
convenient for students to use as they are generic and mostly purpose-built for mobile devices. Nonetheless,
they are often offered as silos in the form of freemiums, premiums, or few-day trial versions (Ahalt and Fecho,
2015; TeachThought Staff, 2018). Those offered as freemium or trial versions tend not to have all the requisite
features and functionalities common in premium versions. By contrast, those available as premium versions
tend to be paid for and, thus, are unaffordable to some students. In fact, in a world in which social media
technologies together with attendant over-the-top technologies (OTTs) seem to be incrementally colonising
students’ lifestyles, ODeL institutions will find it difficult to convince their younger students to continue using
LMS-driven learning tools. This is particularly so since, as argued by Luskin (2016), OTTs, powered by social
media, facilitate online, distance and blended learning a lot more easily and much more seamlessly and
conveniently. So, the current study contends that OTTs are better than traditional IT-backed learning tools
powered by LMS. Three cases in point are WhatsApp, Twitter and Moya Messenger App (henceforth Moya)
which are OTTs with a multi-purpose teaching and learning potential.
Given that no deployment approach to offering student learning support tools is devoid of shortcomings, the
current study employs a hybrid approach to student support. This approach integrates two mobile learning tools
with an online learning tool deployed on and embedded in UNISA’s LMS, myUnisa. The latter is part of UNISA’s
overall ODeL offerings. The two mobile learning tools are Moya and WhatsApp (see Figure 1), while the online
tool in question is a myUnisa’s online discussion forum (hereafter myUnisa’s ODF)..
2. Statement of the problem

The Department of English Studies at UNISA is housed in the School of Arts and falls under the College of Human
Sciences. It is part of UNISA’s open and distance e-learning (ODeL) framework. In terms of registered
undergraduate student enrolment figures, it is the largest department in this college (faculty). Most of the
undergraduate students enrolled in this department are education students registered in an academic
programme such as a Bachelor of Education (B. Ed) programme, which is offered by the College of Education. To
this effect, the department offers a number of undergraduate modules to these students (Chaka and Nkhobo,
2019a). Over the last three years, the department has been providing face-to-face student support classes to
students enrolled in some of their undergraduate modules. Owing to time constraints, the face-to-face student
support classes offered to these students is restricted to certain designated days such as Saturdays or particular
week days during school holidays. These designated student support classes fall under a special project (the
Mathew Goniwe Project) housed in the College of Education (Chaka and Nkhobo, 2021). Outside these
designated face-to-face student support days, students can be offered support via myUnisa, which is UNISA’s
legacy LMS. myUnisa, like many other LMSs (Ahalt and Fecho, 2015; Chaka, 2020; Chaka and Nkhobo, 2021;
Mayanja, Tibaingana and Birevu, 2019), has an online discussion forum (ODF) tool embedded in it as part of its
online suite of tools. This ODF, like most that are embedded in LMSs, has its own vital affordance that can be
tapped into such as asynchronous interaction and responses. These asynchronous interaction and responses
play a pivotal role in respect of support offered to students.
In 2018, one of the authors of the current paper offered, as an instructor, face-to-face student support classes
to a group of undergraduate education students enrolled in one of the second-level modules. The classes took
place on certain designated Saturdays and involved six intensive hours of teaching. Outside the designated
Saturdays, students were provided additional support pertaining to some aspects of the module content on the
myUnisa-powered ODF. This entailed asynchronous interact and responses on the part of students, and
asynchronous scaffolding and feedback on the part of the instructor. Nevertheless, it soon became clear that
the asynchonicity of responses, scaffolding and feedback that characterised this ODF, had some drawbacks.
Some of these drawbacks were: delayed responses and lack of spontaneous online presence on the part of
students; delayed scaffolding and feedback, and lack of spontaneous online presence on the part of the
instructor; and the inconvenience associated with accessing myUnisa’s ODF on the small screens of students’
mobile phones. In order to compensate for these shortcomings, both Moya and WhatsApp were utilised. One
the one hand, this was done with a view to enhancing student online response, online interaction and online
presence. On the other hand, this was done to enrich instructor online scaffolding, online feedback and online
presence. That is, the cardinal aim was to bring an element of spontaneity and near-synchronicity to the student
support ecosystem which is often missing on myUnisa’s ODF.
www.ejel.org 495 ISSN 1479-4403

The Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 18 Issue 6 2020
3. Theoretical framing
This study situates its debate within an integrated theoretical framework. This framework comprises mobility
from the acronym M-COPE (mobile, conditions, outcomes, pedagogy and ethics) (Dennen and Hao, 2014;
Lillejord et al., 2018); presence teaching and presence learning (Chaka, 2015a); and connectivism (del Valle
García Carreño, 2014; Downes, 2010; Kop and Hill, 2008; Siemens, 2005; Thomas and Gelan, 2018). In brief, as
used in this study, this framework refers to learning mediated through mobility, presence teaching, presence
learning, and connectivism. This is the learning in which students and lecturers leverage mobile devices and
mobile applications (mobility). As pointed out above, the study borrows the concept of mobility from mobile as
encapsulated in Dennen and Hao’s (2014) acronym, M-COPE. Dennen and Hao (2014) distinguish between
learning activities that are mobile by design and necessity, and those that are mobile by circumstance. The
former occur on mobile devices, but may as well occur in any other technology; the latter exploit the distinctive
qualities and tools related to mobility, location (especially geo-location), and the functionality offered by mobile
devices. The main differentiator in all this is the value (affordance) that a mobile device brings to a learning
context. Examples of this learning value can be the fact that a given mobile device serves as a cognitive tool or
offers new forms of interactions. In this case, some learning activities are mobile-dependent, whereas others
are mobile-supported or mobile-enhanced (Dennen and Hao (2014). For the current study, mobility is employed
in the sense of facilitating mobile-dependent and mobile-enhancing learning activities. This sense eschews the
mobile-dependence and mobile-enhancement binarism.
The framework also uses mobility in the sense espoused by Chaka (2012). This sense of mobility encompasses
qualities such as ubiquity, pervasiveness, portability, connectivity and flexibility (Sung, Chang and Liu, 2016)
within a consumerisation of information technology (IT) environment. The latter refers to a situation in which
personal consumer-grade mobile devices (e.g., mobile phones and tablets) are adopted and used by students
for educational purposes to complement the existing educational IT tools such as an LMS. This is also analogous
to employees would their adopting and using their own mobile devices for workplace purposes to supplement
enterprise IT tools. This approach to using personal mobile devices is also known as bring your own device
(BYOD) (Chaka, 2012). In the present study, students’ use of their own mobile phones and applications like Moya
and WhatsApp as part of learning support represents tapping into mobility within an IT consumerisation
environment for educational purposes.
Furthermore, the types of teaching and learning envisaged in this framework are presence teaching and
presence learning as theorised by Chaka (2014, 2015a, 2015b). Briefly stated, presence teaching is teaching that
enables an instructor’s digital presence in a digital tool or application used for teaching purposes. In the same
vein, presence learning is learning that allows for a student’s digital presence in a digital tool or application used
for learning purposes. Three types of online presence are relevant here: social presence, co-presence and tele-
presence. The first type of presence is about a symmetrically mutual relationship between participants that
requires their co-location (Chaka, 2015a; Oh, Bailenson and Welch, 2018). Roy, 2007). The second type of
presence has to do with the mutual awareness participants have of each other online (Chaka, 2015a; Oh,
Bailenson and Welch., 2018; Resta and Laferrière, 2007), while tele-presence refers to the degree to which a
student feels present in a digitally mediated environment (Chaka, 2015a; Oh, Bailenson and Welch, 2018). In
the case of this study, tools that can be used to mediate online presence are Moya and WhatsApp as powered
by mobile phones.
The last aspect of this integrated framework is connectivism. Connectivism refers to a digital environment in
which virtually dispersed and distributed parts such as machines, mobile devices (e.g., mobile phones), mobile
applications (e.g., instant mobile messengers), and people are remotely and seamlessly connected digitally for
a given purpose (e.g., communicating, social networking, learning, teaching, etc.) (del Valle García Carreño,
2014; Downes, 2010; Kop and Hill, 2008; Siemens, 2005; Thomas and Gelan, 2018). In the main, it assumes
learning is distributed between three pillars: the instructor, the learner, and the network (Crosslin, 2016; Kop
and Hill, 2008; Tait, 2014). With regard to this study, the instructor, students, mobile phones, Moya and
WhatsApp serve as instances of connectivism.
Given that no deployment approach to offering student learning support tools is devoid of shortcomings, the
current study employs a hybrid approach to student support. This approach integrates two mobile learning tools
with an online learning tool deployed on and embedded in UNISA’s LMS, myUnisa. The latter is part of UNISA’s
overall ODeL offerings. The two mobile learning tools are Moya and WhatsApp (see Figure 1), while the online
www.ejel.org 496 ©ACPIL

tool in question is a myUnisa’s ODF (see Figure 1). The two mobile tools, which are privately owned consumer
applications freely available to users.
Figure 1: A screenshot of Moya Messenger App, WhatsApp and myUnisa.
4. Related literature
This section, which is not a traditional literature review, provides fit-for-purpose aspects of literature that are
related to and relevant for the paper. It is structured into two sub-sections: digital shift; and student learning
support and scaffolding in an open and distance e-learning context.
4.1 Digital shift
The phrase, digital shift, is used here in its generic sense to refer to use of digital and emerging technologies for
student support in open and distance learning (ODL). In this sense, it embodies, especially within the ODL
context, a shift from the use of traditional technologies such as telephone and radio which characterised the old
form of ODL, to the use and adoption of digital and emerging technologies in the ODL arena. This usage does
not foreground the different digital revolutions and historical trajectories often associated with the digital age
as such aspects are not the focus of this study (Barnatt, 2001; Chaka, 2019a, 2019b; Tait, 2014). Tait (2014) cites
print, text, electricity, transport and radio as examples of technologies that dominated the old form of ODL,
which was correspondence or first generation ODL. In its older form, ODL had student support offered by,
mediated through and confined to some of these technologies (Ferreira and Venter, 2011; Tait, 2014). Within
this old ODL ecosystem, the advent of electronic mail (e-mail) and electronic learning (e-learning) was a
momentous event (Chaka, 2010). The latter (e-learning) and LMSs, the paper argues, became disruptive
technologies for deploying ODL. Therefore, the observation of this paper is that e-learning remains one of the
key teaching and learning deployment tools on which the educational IT infrastructure of UNISA as an ODeL is
founded.
The advent of digital technologies in the sense used in this paper has seen ODL enter a new era of student
support with digital and emerging technologies become disruptors in the ODL ecosystem in a manner similar to
a disruptive and game-changing role played by semio-technologies in digitally mediated literacies. These digital
and emerging technologies include but are not restricted to instant messengers (e.g., WhatsApp and Moya),
microblogging applications (e.g., Twitter), social networking sites (e.g., Facebook), video sharing tools (e.g.,
YouTube), (Chaka, 2019b; Resta and Laferrière, 2007), and video-conferencing tools (e.g., Zoom and Microsoft
Teams). In the ODL context, and especially for second and third generation ODL (Tait, 2014), digital and emerging
technologies, the paper argues, hold the potential to facilitate and mediate student support in a manner that is
not possible when traditional and standard technologies such as LMSs and online discussion forums (ODFs)
embedded in them are employed alone.

4.2 Student support and scaffolding in an open and distance e-learning context
The expressions student support, learner support and learning support are often used interchangeably in most
ODL literature (Brindley, Walti and Zawacki-Richter, 2008; Baloyi, 2014; Minnaar, 2011). However, in this paper
student support is a preferred expression as it aptly captures the types of students being investigated here: they
are ODeL university students some of whom are working. This is despite the fact that the term learner has a
generic usage, and signifies an active and instrumental role that a learner plays in the learning process (Brindley
et al., 2008). Thus, it is ODeL student support as situated within the theoretical framing presented above that is
foregrounded in this paper. In the ODL context, student support is defined differently. One definition espoused
by this paper is that student support entails interactive educational activities and services aimed at supporting
and enhancing a learning process. Subsumed in this definition are aspects such as teaching, tutoring, feedback
and advising. The other aspects included in this definition are administrative support, counselling, guidance,
welfare, and admission and registration (Brindley and Paul, 2008; Brindley et al., 2008; Baloyi, 2014; Ryan, 2008;
Simpson, 2002; Thorpe, 2002). Two dimensions of student support are evident from this definition: academic
student support and administrative student support (Zawacki-Richter, 2008). While these two dimensions are
equally important as they complement each other in the overall student support ecosystem, it is the former
dimension of student support that this paper sets out to explore. The focus of this student support is on an
undergraduate module offered to a group of undergraduate education students by the Department of English
Studies at UNISA. This student support pertains to some of the aspects of the module content in terms of
scaffolding and feedback.
There are three cardinal functions served by student support in ODL: cognitive, affective and systemic functions.
The first function is about fostering learning by mediating it through course materials and learning resources;
the second one entails providing an environment that supports and enhances learner self-esteem; and the third
function relates to implementing administrative and information management systems that are transparent.
efficient and student-centred (Brindley and Paul, 2008). It is the first function that forms part of the focus of this
paper.
The second area of focus in this section of the paper is scaffolding within an ODeL context. Like student support,
the term scaffolding is defined multiply not only within ODL, but across the teaching and learning spectrum
(Puntambekar and Hübscher, 2005; Resta and Laferrière, 2007). In educational circles, scaffolding is credited to
Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) even though it is also linked to Vygotsky’s (1978) metaphorical concept of the
zone of proximal development (McLoughlin, 2002). The latter is part of Vygotsky’s (1978) social development
theory, which refers to the space in which a student can learn on their own (self-learning) and in which they can
learn through the assistance of a teacher (Chaiklin, 2003; Ludwig-Hardman and Dunlap, 2003; Wertsch, 1984).
In this paper, scaffolding is used to refer to the support offered to a student with regard to a learning activity
with a view to helping the student to successfully engage with the learning activity. Such a support involves
interactions between an instructor and a student, instructor-led discussions, peer interactions, and hints and
prompts provided on technologies intended to offer support student learning (Puntambekar and Hübscher,
2005; Resta and Laferrière, 2007;Wood, Bruner and Ross, 1976). This is an evolved and modified version of the
scaffolding construct that resonates with fifth generation ODL (Ferreira and Venter, 2011) as one of the salient
features of the latter is digital and emerging technologies.
McLoughlin (2002) identifies several dimensions applicable to different teaching and learning settings within
ODL. These are as follows:
x Orientation (communication of expectation) – Providing students with a clear explanation of what they
are expected to achieve
x Coaching – Offering students support through software applications to facilitate task performance
x Eliciting articulation – Encouraging articulation so as to help students express existing understanding and
reflection (e.g., peer communication posted on a ODF)
x Task support – Creating support structures that enable students to perform a task (e.g., resources that
enable engagement with task or activity)
x Expert regulation – Provision of support based on instructor or mentor expertise
x Conceptual scaffolding – Support offered when the task or activity is presented so as to help focus
students on the problem at hand in the midst of multiple interpretations
x Meta-cognitive scaffolding – Type of scaffolding given by a cognitive tool (e.g., an electronic device) to
enable students to express their thinking while engaging with the task

x Procedural scaffolding – Type of scaffolding intended to support in using available resources and tools
(e.g., online resource sharing or online collaborative learning)
x Strategic scaffolding – Type of scaffolding provided to signal alternative learning pathways or courses of
action related to the task at hand (e.g., multiple perspectives or multiple scenarios to the task)
(Puntambekar and Hübscher, 2005; Zawacki-Richter, 2008).
In contrast, Puntambekar and Hübscher (2005) identifies four features of scaffolding. These features, as
modified for the purpose of this paper, are as follows:
x Scaffolder – Assistance or expertise offered to the student by an instructor or a peer, or through
technology (mobile or online resources and tools)
x Shared understanding – Providing shared common knowledge about authentic tasks embodied in a
learning environment
x Ongoing diagnosis and calibrated support – Ongoing diagnosis by an instructor, a peer or a tool, including
blanket scaffolding to all students or a differentiated scaffolding to individual students
x Fading – Support can be withdrawn, or can be permanent and stable
The current study intends exploring the dimensions and features of scaffolding mentioned above in varying
degrees. A crucial point to note here is that the notion of scaffolding has been contested and problematised by
certain scholars, especially in its simplistic and blanket application. One such scholar is Palinscar (1998) who
raised the point that applying scaffolding atheoretically is problematic. To this end, she called on scholars to re-
situate scaffolding within its theoretical framework, consider instances in which activities and circumstances
scaffold learning, and investigate the link between scaffolding and teaching (Puntambekar and Hübscher, 2005).
The current study aligns itself with this observation. To this end, it situates its investigation of scaffolding within
the integrated theoretical framework it outlined earlier.
Mobile learning tools such as the two tools mentioned above, can be construed as push technologies as they
enable servers to channel and direct information updates to web clients (Bassendowski and Petrucka, 2013;
Spacey, 2017). In this sense, they allow students to be primed, taught and supported directly on their own mobile
devices (Armatas, Holt and Rice, 2005) through a BYOD approach. Conversely, within the ODeL system as is the
case with the rest of the HE ecosystem, LMSs such as myUnisa (together with its online discussion forum tool)
operate as pull technologies intended to pull students to these online platforms through requests made by web
clients to servers in a traditional client/server architecture (Bassendowski and Petrucka, 2013; Spacey, 2017). As
pointed out above, this study integrates two push technologies (e.g., Moya and WhatsApp) with one pull
technology (e.g., myUnisa’s ODF) as part of its hybrid tools to support students enrolled for an English Studies
module at UNISA. To this end, the study is informed by the following research questions (RQs):
RQ1 – What are the benefits of integrating Moya Messenger App and WhatsApp as push technologies
with myUnisa’s ODF (an online discussion forum) as a pull technology to support students enrolled for
an English Studies module?
x RQ2 – How do these three learning support tools facilitate student support in this module?
x RQ3 – Which of these tools are readily embraced as a learning support tool by students?
5. Research methodology
This study is grounded in an interpretivist research paradigm. Research based on this paradigm often yields
copious, contextual, but substantially unregulated, unpredictable data (Mason, 2002; Ponelis 2015). As a
corollary, a case study research design was deemed to be an appropriate research design for the current study.
A case study research design is intended to examine contemporary phenomena as embedded in real-life
contexts, especially when boundaries between such phenomena and their contexts are not clearly manifest (Yin,
2014). It is also a research design requiring multiple sources of data and a resultant triangulation of datasets.
This research design may encompass a single case or multiple cases, and may include qualitative and quantitative
data (Harrison et al., 2017). Moreover, a case study research design draws strengths from prior theoretical
propositions for data collection and data analysis. To this end, it is not merely a data collection technique or a
design plan, but an all-encompassing research strategy. There are certain purposes that case studies serve.
These are to: (a) explore situations in which interventions being evaluated have single clear-cut outcomes; (b)
describe interventions in real-life contexts in which such interventions occur, or the sequence in which they
occur; (c) illustrate particular topics in a given evaluation by employing a descriptive mode; (d) explain

correlations in real-life interventions; (e) meta-evaluate other evaluation studies (Yin, 2014; Griffee, 2012; Stake,
2005; Thomas and Myers, 2015). In this instance, it can enhance theory testing and theory building (Yin, 2014).
5.1 Participants and sampling techniques
Participants for this case study comprised 41 undergraduate students enrolled for a second-level English Studies
module at UNISA. This module is a semester module, one of the outcomes of which is to analyse and interpret
the structure of language as reflected in selected texts drawn from different genres. All of the participants had
registered for a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree: Foundation Phase, and were from diverse language
backgrounds and from different geographic locations across South Africa. Forty of these participants were
females and one was a male. Collectively, their average age, based on their module registration data, was 38
years (SD = 2.2). All of these students were allocated to the instructor by the Mathew Goniwe project which was
responsible for a special learning support programme that run on designated Saturdays in the second semester
of 2018. Besides, most of the participants enrolled in this module were prospective educators for early childhood
education which traditionally attracts more female educators than male educators. This is one of the factors
that accounted for one male student who had registered for this module.
A sampling technique employed to sample these participants was volunteer sampling. Briefly stated, this
technique entails self-selection – participants selecting themselves; or volunteer participation – participants
volunteering to be part of a given study project. Often participants are requested to volunteer to partake in a
study, or an announcement is advertised inviting volunteer participants (Omair, 2015; Sharma, 2017). Three
benefits of volunteer sampling are: it is less time consuming and inexpensive; it allows a collecting of a lot of
data with minimum personal effort (Alvi, 2016); and it enables easy access to appropriate units (cases) (Sharma,
2017). However, some of its drawbacks include the following: its findings are often not generalisable to other
cases; it lacks representativeness and is prone to systematic errors (Omair, 2015; Rezigalla, 2020; Setia, 2016);
and it is susceptible to bias (Sharma, 2017; Arinto, 2016; Benoot, Hannes and Bilsen, 2016; Etikan, Musa and
Alkassim, 2015).
In the current study, 61 participants were requested to volunteer to take part in the research project through
an email announcement that was sent to them before the onset of the project (Wood, Bruner and Ross, 1976).
In the final analysis, 41 of them volunteered to participate in the study. This, then, is the manner in which
participants for this study were sampled. But before all this took place, participants were informed about the
study; their consent was sought; and ethical clearance was secured. The ethical clearance used was the one
granted to a special project (the Mathew Goniwe Project) overseeing designated Saturday student support
classes as mentioned earlier. It was granted by the College of Education’s Research Ethics Review Committee at
UNISA (Chaka and Nkhobo, 2019a).
5.2 Data collection process: Instruments, materials and procedure
There were three sets of data that were collected for the purpose of this study. All the data were collected over
six days, from 26 October 2018 to 31 October 2018, as part of the participants’ revision for their end-of-semester
examination in the module in question. Students’ participation in this exercise was optional, and the revision
itself was meant to establish the manner in which the three tools employed for revision helped mediate learning
support to those students who were willing to participate in this revision exercise. Therefore, the three datasets
were garnered through three tools: Moya, WhatsApp and myUnisa’s ODF. The first dataset consisted of the
teacher’s scaffolding and participants’ synchronous responses to the scaffolding; the second dataset comprised
samples of three-paragraph essays; and the third dataset was made up of participants’ reflective comments.
As pointed out above, three learning support tools, Moya, WhatsApp and myUnisa’s ODF were utilised as a
combination of mobile push technologies and an online pull technology to collect data from participants. Firstly,
participants were given a topic, “Compare and contrast the way that the writers use register, style and linguistic
features to convey intention and reveal the genre of the texts” (see Figure 2), and two texts (Text B and Text C)
on Moya (see Figure 4) on 26 October 2018. After that, the teacher engaged participants in real-time scaffolding
about what they needed to know about and what they had to do in writing the essay task (see Figures 5 and 6).
Secondly, a day later, participants were requested to write a three-paragraph “compare and contrast” essay on
WhatsApp. Each of the three paragraphs had to be dedicated to an introduction, a body and a conclusion,
respectively (see Figure 6). The essay’s instructions and its other related aspects had been posted (real-time) on
Moya a day before the due date. Thirdly, participants were asked to comment about and reflect on their

experiences of having partaken in a Moya scaffolding and of having written the essay on WhatsApp. They did
this on myUnisa’s ODF.
Figure 2: A screenshot of a topic given to participants on Moya

5.3 Data analysis
An analytic method used for analysing the data for this study was thematic analysis. This analytic method entails
searching for themes emerging from and embedded in, especially though not exclusively, narrative data of
phenomena investigated. It essentially involves identifying themes by carefully extracting them from the data,
thereby making it a pattern recognition process in which themes emerging from the data become categories
subjected to analysis (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006; Attride-Stirling, 2001). It may either be inductive or
deductive depending on the choice made by the researcher. The data coding system follows specified steps.
Codes are intended to capture the richness of themes embedded in the data. To this end, a theme is seen as a
pattern in the data which, on the one hand, helps describe and organise the possible aspects of a phenomenon,
and which, on the other hand, helps interpret crucial aspects of the phenomenon (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane,
2006; Attride-Stirling, 2001).
In the present study, thematic analysis was both inductive and deductive, and iterative and reflective. Inductive
thematic analysis followed a step-by-step coding procedure, which even though entailed linearity as depicted in
Figure 3, but was nonetheless iterative and reflective in its execution. This form of analysis was data-driven.
Deductive thematic analysis was mounted as a priori approach responding to the aspects of the theoretical
framework mentioned in the first section of this study. This dual approach was employed to ensure that the
analysis was both data-driven and theory-responsive. The stages of the data coding system for inductive
thematic analysis were as illustrated in Figure 4 below.
As shown in this figure, the data coding procedure used in this study consisted of 4 steps with their related sub-
steps as outlined in this figure. These themes, together with the related theoretical constructs displayed under
step 4, were created iteratively and revised constantly. Three raters coded the data using Cohen’s kappa (κ).
Cohen’s κ is a common co-efficient used to measure inter-coder reliability (Cohen, 1960; Sun, 2011; Chaka,
2019a; Chaka, Lephalala and Ngesi, 2017). The three raters’ coding reliability was .80, which according to Cohen’s
κ value weightings (.00 to .1) is excellent (Cohen, 1960; Chaka, 2019a; Chaka et al., 2017).

Step 1: Developing a Coding Framework/Code Manual

(a) Coding of data (e.g., instructor’s scaffolding and participants’ synchronous responses; samples of
three paragraph essays; and participants’ reflective comments)
(b) Calculating the reliability of codes (e.g., three raters coded the data, and their coding consistency
and agreement was calculating using Cohen’s kappa (κ) (Cohen, 1960)
(c) Dissecting (textual) data into segments using the coding framework
Step 2: Identification of Initial Themes

(a) Extract/Abstracting basic themes from coded data segments (e.g., compare and contrast)
(b) Refining themes as needed (e.g., exchanges; announcements; instructions; responses;
introduction; body; conclusion; sentences; and paragraphs)
Step 3: Identification of Final Themes

(a) Building final themes from initial themes (e.g., announcement tool; affordances; mobility; and
interactions)
Step 4: Establishing theoretical constructs

(a) Building theoretical constructs from final categories (e.g., asynchronicity/synchronicity;
asynchronous/synchronous mobility; asynchronous/synchronous scaffolding; multiple digital
interactions; synchronous feedback; presence teaching; presence learning;
asynchronous/synchronous paragraph writing; and online meta-content reflection)
(b) Linking theoretical constructs to the study’s theoretical framework
Figure 3: A diagrammatic representation of the stages of the data coding system (Adapted and modified from
Attride-Stirling, 2001, p. 391 and Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006, p. 5)
6. Findings
The findings presented in this section are informed by the three sources of data mentioned in the preceding
section. In addition, these findings are in response to the research questions cited earlier and, as such, they are
divided into sub-sections based on these research questions.
6.1 Moya
With reference to employing Moya as a learning support tool, a compare and contrast activity that participants
had to do was announced on this instant messaging tool. This included two texts that were to be compared and
contrasted (see Figure 4). The two texts were part of the May/June 2018 examination question paper for the
module under study (again see Figure 4), and had been sourced from two Internet websites, a web address of
one of which is shown in the right-hand side screenshot of this figure.
In respect of what was expected of the participants pertaining to this activity, Figure 5displays the interaction in
which one of the researchers (henceforth the teacher unless otherwise stated) had with some of the
participants. This interaction was a follow-up to the announcement of the activity that the teacher made to
participants (see Figure 2). As illustrated in these two figures, the activity required students to compare and
contrast two texts (Text B and Text C) using the Moya, mobile platform. Figure 2 under the previous section
displays a screenshot of the step-by-step instructions of the activity as posted on Moya by the teacher. These
consist of the main instruction and its associated sub-instructions. The associated sub-instructions are
explanatory in nature, with one of them guiding participants as to how they should respond, and with the other
one informing participants to signal once they are ready with their responses.

Figure 4: Portions of both Text B and Text C as part of a compare and contrast activity
Figure 5: Greetings and prompts related to a compare and contrast activity on Moya
On this score, the left-hand part of Figure 5 depicts one of the participants greeting the teacher, to which the
teacher duly reciprocates. The exchange immediately switches to the teacher’s introducing of the focus of the
chat: the discussion of the differences between the Text B and Text C. The points he presents are framed as
prompts in the form of leading questions) which are, in one instance, interposed by the participant’s response.
The right-hand side screenshot of this figure features further prompts in the form of clarification of the activity
by the teacher to the participant.
Similarly, Figure 6 provides a further clarification of the Moya compare and contrast activity. In fact, most of the
information captured in the top part of the left-hand side of this figure is a rehash of the main instruction
represented in Figure 2. So, while the main instruction in Figure 2 is framed in generic terms without any length
specification, in Figure 5 (the left-hand part of this figure) the self-same main instruction has both a length
specification (“three paragraphs of 5 lines each”) and the mode in which the activity should be presented (a

written essay). It also has three more prompts phrased as statements that serve to elaborate on the main
instruction. The last prompt re-emphasises the expected length again. In this part of the figure, two participants
engage in the exchange by a one-word response each. The right-hand part of this figure offers even more specific
details about the activity. It furnishes (in parentheses) what aspect of an essay each paragraph needs to have
and has to focus on.
Figure 6: Further clarification of the Moya activity

Additionally, it re-states the number of lines or sentences each should have. This again, it does by not only
rehashing a point mentioned in the main instruction showcased in the left-hand side screenshot of Figure 6, but
also by providing an equivalent of lines: sentences. Moreover, the day at which and the period during which the
activity has to be submitted are both supplied. To this end, the mobile platform (WhatsApp) on which the activity
should be submitted is mentioned. At this point, participants are told that the activity is “individualized” and
“personalised”. So, they are cautioned not to “create a new whatsapp group chat”.
Figure 7: An interaction between the lecturer and some of the participants with regard to the compare and
contrast activity on Moya
In response to the teacher’s instructions for the compare and contrast activity that participants had to carry out
on Moya as captured in Figures 2 and 5, part of the interaction which developed between the teacher and some

of the participants is as exemplified in Figure 7. This interaction starts off with one of the participants making
everyone aware of the fact that she is the one who had been responding to Text C (on Moya), but that initially
she “was lost” (see the left-hand side screenshot of this figure). One of the participants feels “sorry” for her,
whereupon she apologises to the group (“So sorry guys”). The same screenshot indicates how far one of the
participants “has read” this text: “phin… has read up to this point”. The middle screenshot displays how another
participant engages in-depth with this text as per the instructions provided in Figures 2 and 56. She is joined in
her response by another participant and by the teacher. But, much of the exchange on this screenshot is
between her and the other participant.
In the right-hand side screenshot, the exchange is between the same participant who provided an in-depth
response to Text C and the teacher. In this exchange, the former offers a motivation for her response, while the
latter provides further prompts and commends both participants. Additionally, in the same screenshot, one
participant’s (Zan) point at which she has read Text B is reported.
6.2 WhatsApp
Pertaining to the actual compare and contrast essay itself, which was supposed to be submitted on WhatsApp
(see the right-hand side screenshot of Figure 6), samples of this essay are depicted in Figures 8, 9, 10 and 11. For
example, all these four figures depict sample essays which follow the stipulated essay structure: introduction,
body and conclusion.
Figure 8: Sample essay 1

F
Each of these three sections of the essay had to constitute a paragraph consisting of five lines/sentences (see
Figure 6). In this regard, each of these sample essays, as shown in Figures 8, 9, 10 and 11, had the following
number of sentences in each of the three categories, respectively: Figure 8 = 3 paragraphs (4+7+2 = 13
sentences); Figure 9 = 4 paragraphs (2+4+5+1 = 12 sentences); Figure 10 = 3 paragraphs (6+7+2 = 15 sentences);
and Figure 11 = 4 paragraphs (5+6+4+2 = 17 sentences). The total number of sentences for each paragraph and
for each sample essay are in parentheses, and must be seen against the backdrop of 5 sentences each paragraph
was supposed to have according to the essay instruction. These sample essays have a total word count of 229,
135, 240, and 333 words apiece, and a grand word count of 937 words collectively.


In terms of the core instruction, “compare and contrast the way that the writers use register, style and linguistic
features to convey meaning and reveal the genre of the text” (see Figures 2 and 6), sample essay 1 in Figure 8
tends to provide largely a descriptive analysis of the two texts. Nonetheless, it has elements of comparing and
contrasting. By contrast, sample essay 2 (see Figure 9) restates the exact wording used in the main instruction
of the question in its introduction. However, it falls short of elaborating on each of the key words contained in
the main instruction of the question in its two subsequent paragraphs, save that it provides words repeated in
Text B in the third paragraph.
Two sample essays that attempt, to some extent, to respond to the “compare and contrast essay task according
to its core instruction are sample essays 3 and 4 (see Figures 10 and 11). Both sample essays begin with
introductory paragraphs that foreground some of the requirements of the core instruction in varying degrees.
For instance, on the one hand, sample essay 3 prefaces its discussion by drawing the reader’s attention to “how
language is used in context” and how writers “use specific discourse for different texts” when communicating a
given purpose. On the other hand, sample essay 4 flags the common issue addressed by the two texts (Text B
and Text C): “corruption in South Africa”. Subsequent paragraphs in each sample essay endeavor to respond to
the question, particularly, by trying to demonstrate – again in varying degrees - how register and linguistic
features have been used in each text to convey meaning.


6.3 myUnisa’s ODF
As pointed out earlier, in respect of myUnisa’s ODF as a pull learning support tool, participants were asked to
post on this tool their comments about their experiences of engaging with the essay task on Moyaand of writing
this task on WhatsApp.
Figure 12: Sample discussion forum message

All participants were happy about the learning support provided to them. One such comment posted on
myUnisa’s ODF is displayed by Figure 12. Here one participant expresses her gratitude about such a support. She
particularly singles out the Moyalearning support group, mentions how it has shed light to them about
interpreting and writing an academic essay. To this end, the participant is of the view that it is “encouraging to
receive constructive feedback immediately.”
7. Discussion of findings
This section discusses the findings of the current study. The discussion is grounded on the findings as presented
in the preceding section. In addition, this section is divided into the affordances each learning support tool offers.
These affordances are discussed under a learning support tool through which they were both realised and

mediated. Moreover, the discussion of the findings is framed – together with the attendant affordances of the
three learning support tools - in response to the three research questions (RQ1, RQ2 and RQ3) of the study.
7.1 MoyaMA and its affordances as a learning support tool
As described in the findings presented in the preceding section, there are a number of affordances (inherent
utilitarian uses) that are offered by Moya as a student learning support tool. One of these affordances is an
announcement tool. As illustrated by Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 and as described in the preceding section, Moya was
employed in this study as a mobile announcement tool. This affordance is mobile-enhancing in its asynchronous
form and mobile-dependent in its synchronous from (Dennen and Hao, 2014). The second affordance which is
functionally linked to the first one is mobility. As a tool, Moya enabled the teacher to tap into asynchronous
mobility (see Figure 2). In this case, the instructor (S) posted the essay activity announcement live on Moya when
all participants were offline, thereby leveraging the asynchronous mobility of this platform. But no sooner had
he posted this announcement than one participant (G) logged onto Moya live (see Figure 4) to announce her
presence online. This demonstrates that Moya also facilitated synchronous mobility not only between the
instructor and this participant, but between him and other participants as well (see Figures 5 and 6). In this
instance, this dual affordance underscores its mobile-enhancing and mobile-dependent functionality. This
means that Moya also afforded the instructor and participants both asynchronous and synchronous mobility
(Dennen and Hao, 2014; North-Samardzic, et al., 2014). To this end, North-Samardzic, et al. (2014) emphasise
the complementarity of asynchronicity and synchronicity in virtual learning environments. The same argument
holds for the ODeL environment as exemplified by Moya in the current study. Moreover, in this case, Moya
tends to lends itself well as a digital and emerging technology that can used for both BYOD and IT
consumerisation purposes (Chaka, 2012) within a student learning support context.
Another affordance offered by Moya is scaffolding. The type of scaffolding mediated to participants through
Moya and how participants were scaffolded using this instant mobile messenger application is shown by Figures
5, 6 and 7. For instance, the scaffolding displayed in these figures is enacted through multiple digital interactions.
In Figures 5 and 6, for example, the scaffolding is initiated through a student/instructor interaction, even though
it is more instructor-dominated. This, then, becomes an instructor-led discussion (Puntambekar and Hübscher,
2005; Resta and Laferrière, 2007) in which the instructor provides: orientation; coaching; eliciting articulation;
expert regulation; conceptual scaffoliding; cognitive scaffolding; and meta-cognitive scaffolding (McLoughlin,
2002). Three more scaffolding features based on Puntambekar and Hübscher (2005) are evident from the
scaffolding interactions as depicted in these aforesaid figures. These are a scaffolder exemplified by the
instructor; a shared understanding related to the essay writing activity offered mainly by the instructor, and to
some extent by students, especially student N; and an ongoing diagnosis provided largely by the instructor.
Similarly, the scaffolding in Figure 7 is mediated through a student/instructor interaction that is more student-
dominated, resulting in a student-led discussion (Puntambekar and Hübscher, 2005; Wood, Bruner and Ross,
1976). In this interaction (which is largely dominated by N), N provides responses to the instructor’s scaffolding
as well as responding to student S (colour blue). The latter case exemplifies peer interaction which is often
regarded as a necessary component of student learning support that helps reveal students’ level of content
matter understanding (Aghaee and Keller, 2016; Bond et al., 2020; Lai et al., 2019). So, here, student N, unlike
prescholars who often rely on the instructor’s prompts and hints (Wood, Bruner and Ross, 1976), is able to lead
a scaffolding discussion by responding to some aspects of the scaffolding and by engaging another student.
In addition, the scaffolding as exemplified in this figure is mediated through four more types of interaction:
student/student interaction; student/content interaction; instructor/student interaction; and
instructor/content interaction. This underlines notion idea of multiple digital interactions embedded in this
scaffolding. Emphasising the pivotal role played by scaffolding in computer-mediated learning, Laru (2012)
contends that besides enhancing learning, the practice of scaffolding is increasingly becoming an indispensable
ingredient in technology-rich environments. The current usage of Moya for scaffolding learning seems no
different.
All of this scaffolding together with its concomitant types of interaction was mediated by Moya as an instant
mobile messenger application. Therefore, in this case, Moya enabled the teacher and participants to engage in
mobile scaffolding pertaining to the essay writing activity. This mobile scaffolding happened mainly
synchronously (see Figures 5, 6 and 7), even though it was initiated asynchronously by the teacher. The value of
synchronous interaction - and analogously of synchronous scaffolding – is highlighted by North-Samardzic et al.

(2014) who maintain that such synchronicity offers immediate feedback. With reference to this study, Moya
afforded the teacher the opportunity to render instant scaffolding to participants. Most importantly, this instant
scaffolding on itself own served as a virtual forum in which the teacher and participants engaged in meta-content
issues related to one aspect of the module being studied, the compare and contrast essay writing. All of this
underlines two elements of mobility - mobile-enhancement and mobile-dependence (Dennen and Hao, 2014;
Sung, Chang and Liu, 2016) – that Moya adds to scaffolding as part of this BYOD and IT consumerisation student
support environment.
A further affordance facilitated by Moya is presence teaching (Chaka, 2014, 2015a, 2015b). Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7
exemplify instances of presence teaching. For example, Figures 5 and 6 display instances of presence teaching
in which the teacher has more digital presence than participants have. This is due to a scaffolding-cum-teaching
that is teacher-dominated. Of course, it becomes a scaffolding-cum-learning for participants as they learn
through reading and responding to what the teacher posts on Moya. Presence learning becomes even more
profound in Figure 7 which portrays a scaffolding that is student-dominant. This presence teaching-presence co-
occurrence facilitates and enables social presence, co-presence and tele-presence (Chaka, 2015a; Oh, Bailenson
and Welch, 2018; Resta and Laferrière, 2007) between the instructor and students, on the one hand, and
between students themselves, on the other hand. A key feature allied to both presence teaching and presence
learning in connection with Moya is on-screen presence announcement and on-screen presence reading action
tracking. An instance of on-screen presence announcement is “Ga … is here” (see Figure 4), while examples of
on-screen presence reading action tracking are messages, “az … has read up to this point” and “Zan … has read
up to this point”, as depicted in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. Both presence announcement and presence
reading action tracking are application-generated: they are programmatically generated by Moya. In this
respect, Moya was employed as a platform to mediate presence teaching and presence learning, and to provide
on-screen presence announcement and on-screen presence reading action tracking.
Intrinsically allied to presence teaching and presence learning is connectivism (del Valle García Carreño, 2014;
Downes, 2010; Kop and Hill, 2008; Siemens, 2005; Thomas and Gelan, 2018). Through this connectivism, the
teacher and participants were able to tap into mobility, scaffolding, presence teaching and presence learning
(see Figures 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7) by utilising Moya. In a connectivist learning environment, power is dispersed within
triple locations comprising instructors, learners and digital networks. Such power should oscillate between
instructor-centredness and learner-centredness (Crosslin, 2016). In the present study, connectivist interactions
are instructor-led; yet, there are others that are student-led.
Another intrinsic affordance provided by Moyais that it is both a push and an over-the-top (OTT) technology. As
delineated earlier, this type of technology harvests information updates through servers and channels them
directly to web clients (Bassendowski and Petrucka, 2013; Spacey, 2017). One instance of the push factor of
Moya is demonstrated by the rapidity with which participant G’s digital presence is announced in Figure 4 within
2 seconds of the teacher’s being online. In all, these affordances are some of the benefits Moya as a push
technology provided to support participants in this study.
The foregoing discussion demonstrates how in this study, the mobile tool, Moya, can be employed as a mobile
platform to offer asynchronous affordances (e.g., announcements and scaffolding) in the same way as an LMS
such as myUnisa (see Figure 1) and other LMSs can be employed (Chaka, 2015a; 2015b). However, as a push and
OTT technology, Moya brings other benefits or value-adds to the ecosystem of affordances needed for
supporting students. These are synchronicity, mobility, presence learning and connectivism as discussed above.
All of these tend to compensate for the asynchronicity, and for the lack of mobility, presence learning and
connectivism characterising an LMS such as myUnisa. These composite benefits, which are inherent in Moya as
a push and OTT technology, are flagged up in this section as one part of the response to both RQ1 and RQ2 of
this study.
7.2 WhatsApp as an instant mobile platform for essay writing
As is evident from sample essays presented in the findings section, participants were able to digitally and
instantly produce compare and contrast essays of varying lengths and of differing word counts, sentences and
paragraphs on WhatsApp. All of these differing aspects of sample essays ought to be seen against the backdrop
of the essay instruction (3 paragraphs - a paragraph each on the introduction, on the body and on the conclusion
- each of which was to consist of 5 lines/sentences) (see Figure 6). They also need to be viewed against the
instant scaffolding that was provided on Moya prior to the essay writing activity. Of these sample essays, the

shortest had 135 words, 12 sentences and 4 paragraphs. In contrast, the longest had 333 words, 17 sentences
and 4 paragraphs. Based on this, it becomes clear that in this study WhatsApp – as a social networking
application - was utilised by participants as an instant mobile platform for essay writing. In particular, it lent itself
well to being used as a mobile platform for synchronous essay writing. Elsewhere, Chaka (2014) reported the
same observation that the now defunct South African-invented instant messenger, MXit, yielded with respect
to synchronous paragraph writing (Chaka, 2015b).
Another aspect emerging from sample essays as presented in the findings section is that, in writing their essays
on WhatsApp, participants used conventional sentences and followed conventional paragraphs (Chaka, 2015c;
Thubakgale and Chaka, 2016) in keeping with both the essay instruction and the scaffolding (see Figures 8, 9, 10
and 11). To this effect, their sentences and paragraphs did not contain textisms (Chaka, 2015c; Thubakgale and
Chaka, 2016) as would have been expected in an instant mobile messaging environment. This means that
WhatsApp as a mobile social networking application – and as a push and OTT technology – enabled participants
to write synchronous formal essays consisting of conventional sentences and conventional paragraphs that were
textism-free.
A further feature observable from sample essays is that each essay contained an introduction, a body and a
conclusion in line with both the essay instruction and the scaffolding provided. With reference to participants’
responses to the core instruction of the essay task as captured in Figures 2 and 6, their sample essays were at
polar opposites. For example, two of them did not respond according to the instruction (one provided a
descriptive analysis, and the other restated the instruction, especially in its introduction, and failed to elaborate
on key instruction words). The other two sample essays responded appropriately to the core instruction in
varying degrees. This means that some participants were able to produce relevant essay responses through
WhatsApp, while others were not. This is consistent with real-world, face-to-face teaching and learning scenarios
in which some students may provide relevant responses, whereas others may not (Chaka, 2014, 2015c)It is also
consonant with other online scenarios such as ODFs in which the two contrasting student responses may occur.
Most importantly, the dual use of two instant messengers, Moya and WhatsApp, for engaging with students,
tend to have provided the teacher and participants with the opportunity for not only a synchronous engagement
with each other and with meta-content issues, but also for a dual synchronous interaction with each other and
with meta-content aspects of the module under study.
Thus, all the points discussed above show that as a push and OTT technology (Bassendowski and Petrucka, 2013;
Spacey, 2017), WhatsApp, especially as used in the current study, had a value-add of being an instant mobile
platform for essay writing for the participants involved. In particular, this means it brings instantaneity and
almost real-timeness to the type of writing in which participants engaged. These two value-adds are, in addition
to mobility and connectivism, two key benefits that WhatsApp brings to the ecosystem of affordances which
compensate for the affordances an LMS such as myUnisa’s ODF tends to lack. Again, these composite benefits
serve as another part of the response to both RQ1 and RQ2 of this study.
7.3 myUnisa’s ODF as an online meta-content reflection forum
Participants used myUnisa’s ODF – as requested by the instructor - to reflect on the scaffolding they received on
Moya and on the essays they wrote on WhatsApp. Participants indicated that they liked the fact that they used
these two instant messengers to write their essays. For them, Moya stood out as the tool that supported them
well in writing the essay by means of the scaffolding that was provided on it. This is not entirely surprising as the
scaffolding participants received on Moya was not only focused and intensive (see for example, Figure 6), but
also synchronously interactive and engaging (see for instance, Figure 7). That is, it had synchronous interactivity
and engagement for both the instructor and participants (Chaka, 2014, 2015b). The synchronicity and the
interactivity and engagement of this scaffolding is underscored by the view expressed in Figure 12 that it was
“encouraging to receive constructive feedback immediately.” Thus, myUnisa’s ODF, as an asynchronous
discussion forum, afforded participants the opportunity to comment (post the essay writing activity itself) on
the essay they wrote about some of the aspects of the module, especially the compare and contrast aspect of
essay writing of the module. In this sense, in this study, myUnisa’s ODF served as an online asynchronous space
in which participants reflected on some of the meta-content issues related to the module. The significance of
asynchronous discussion forums in facilitating student reflexivity in online courses is highlighted by Chadha
(2017) and Hew, Cheung and Ng (2010). Against this background, these are some of the benefits myUnisa’s ODF
as a push technology proffered to support participants in this study. Given student comments on myUnisa’s ODF
as discussed above, it appears that Moya is learning support tool that participants liked the most.

8. Limitations and recommendations

As mentioned earlier on, this study employed a case study research design. In this instance, it had 41
undergraduate students as its participants. These participants had been requested to select themselves through
volunteer sampling as all the students enrolled for this module were on the verge of writing their 2018 end-of-
year examination. On this basis, the sample used in this study is small for findings sourced from it to be universal
and representative. However, the findings of a study such as this one are more beneficial for their contextual
transferability and applicability than for their universal replicability and generalisability (Chaka, 2015b; Chaka
and Nkhobo, 2019a).
Lastly, the current study was conducted over a short period of time. Future research needs to be conducted over
an extended period of time. Most importantly, such future research requires to compare two groups of students
using the same learning support tools for comparative purposes.
9. Conclusions
The three tools, Moya, WhatsApp and myUnisa’s ODF, were used in this study as tools to support a group of
students enrolled for an undergraduate module in their compare and contrast essay writing activity for different
purposes in an ODeL context. In the course of their being used in this study, these three learning support tools
provided various affordances to both the instructor and participants. For instance, Moya offered certain
interrelated affordances. Firstly, it was employed as a mobile platform for announcing information pertaining to
the compare and contrast essay writing activity in the same way as such an announcement can be made on a
LMS like myUnisa. Secondly, this tool enabled both the instructor and participants to l tap into asynchronous
and synchronous mobility, what the study has also referred to as mobile-enhancing and mobile-dependent
capacity of this tool. Thirdly, it served as a mobile platform for the instructor and participants to engage in an
instant and synchronous scaffolding related to the compare and contrast essay writing activity. All of this
entailed scaffolding features such as orientation, coaching, eliciting articulation, expert regulation, conceptual
scaffolding, cognitive scaffolding, and meta-cognitive scaffolding which often characterise face-to-face teaching
and learning encounters. Fourthly, as a mobile instant application, Moya facilitated presence teaching and
presence learning in respect of the instructor and participants. To this end, this application offered on-screen
presence announcement and on-screen presence reading action tracking of participants. Fifthly, Moya mediated
connectivism between the instructor, participants, and their respective mobile phones. Allied to this affordance
is the fact that MoyaMA, as a push and over-the-top (OTT) technology, harvested information updates about the
compare and contrast essay writing activity (e.g., participants’ digital presence) and pushed them to participants’
mobile phones.
With reference to WhatsApp as an instant application, it was used in this study as an instant mobile platform for
the compare and contrast essay writing activity. In this instance, it enabled participants to write synchronous
formal essays consisting of conventional sentences and conventional paragraphs that were textism-free. When
used in tandem with MoyaMA, WhatsApp afforded the instructor and participants the opportunity to have a dual
synchronous interaction with each other and with meta-content aspects of the module investigated in this study.
In conclusion, myUnisa’s ODF was employed in this study as an online meta-content reflection forum on which
participants were asked to reflect on the scaffolding they received on Moya MA and on the essays they wrote on
WhatsApp. Overall, in this study, the three aforesaid learning tools were integrated for the purpose of
supporting participants to engage in synchronous essay writing scaffolding and in instant essay writing. So, when
taken together, these three learning support tools were utilised in this study to harness their affordances in a
complementary and hybrid way.
References
Aghaee, N. and Keller, C. 2016. ICT-supported peer interaction among learners in Bachelor's and Master's thesis courses.
Computers & Education, [e-journal] 94, pp.276-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.006
Ahalt, S. and Fecho, K., 2015. Ten emerging technologies for higher education. RENCI. Available at:
<http://dx.doi.org/10.7921/G0PN93HQ> [Accessed 1 August 2019].
Alvi, M.H., 2016. A manual for selecting sampling techniques in research. Available at: <https://mpra.ub.uni-
muenchen.de/70218/> [Accessed 12 March 2019].
Arinto, P., 2016. Issues and challenges in open and distance e-learning: Perspectives from the Philippines. International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), pp.162-180.

Armatas, C., Holt, D. and Rice, M., 2005. Balancing the possibilities for mobile technologies in higher education. In: Balance,
Fidelity, Mobility: Maintaining the Momentum? Proceedings ASCILITE 2005. Brisbane, Australia, 4-7 December 2005.
Available at: <http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/04_Armatas.pdf> [Accessed 20
February 2019].
Attride-Stirling. J., 2001. Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), pp.385-
405.
Baloyi, G.P. 2014. Learner support in open distance and e-learning for adult students using technologies. Journal of
Communication, [e-journal] 5(2), pp.127-133.
Barnatt, C. 2001. The second digital revolution. Journal of General Management, [e-journal] 27(2), 1-16. Available at:
<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.498.5588&rep=rep1&type=pdf> [Accessed 21 January
2019].
Bassendowski, S. and Petrucka, P. 2013.The space between: teaching with push-pull strategies that reflect ubiquitous
technology. Journal of Modern Education Review, [e-journal] 3(1), pp.1-7. Available at:
<http://www.academicstar.us> [Accessed 20 April 2020].
Benoot, C., Hannes, K. and Bilsen, J., 2016. The use of purposeful sampling in a qualitative evidence synthesis: a worked
example on sexual adjustment to a cancer trajectory. BMC Medical Research Methodology, [e-journal] 16(21), pp.1-
12. http://dx.doi.10.1186/s12874-016-0114-6
Bond, M., Buntis, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O. and Kerres, M. 2020. Mapping research in student engagement and
educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, [e-journal] 17, article #2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8
Brindley, J.E. and Paul, R.H. 2008. The role of learner support in institutional transformation – A case study in the making.
In: J.E. Brindley, C. Walti and O. Zawacki-Richter, eds. 2008. Learner support in open, distance and online learning
environments. Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag der. Ch.1.
Brindley, J.E., Walti, C. and Zawacki-Richter, O. 2008. The current context of learner support in open, distance and online
learning: an introduction. In: J.E. Brindley, C. Walti and O. Zawacki-Richter, eds. 2008. Learner support in open,
distance and online learning environments. Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag der. Ch.3.
Cavus, N., 2011. Investigating mobile devices and LMS integration in higher education: Student perspectives. Procedia
Computer Science, [journal] 3, pp.1469-1474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2011.01.033
Chaiklin, S. 2003. The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In: A. Kozulin, B.
Gindis, V.S. Ageyev and S.M. Miller, eds. 2003. Learning in doing. Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context.
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840975.004
Chaka, C. 2010. E-learning 2.0: Web 2.0, the Semantic Web and the power of collective intelligence. In: S. Yuen and H. Yang,
eds. 2010. Handbook of research on practices and outcomes in e-learning: issues and trends. Hershey: IGI Global.
Ch.8.6.
Chaka, C., 2012. Consumerization of IT, social computing, and mobility as the new desktop. Cutter IT Journal, 225(5), pp.28-
33.
Chaka, C., 2014. Social media as technologies for asynchronous formal writing and synchronous paragraph writing in the
South African higher education context. In: V. Benson and S. Morgan, eds. 2014. Cutting-edge technologies and social
media use in higher education. Hershey, PA.: IGI Global. Ch.9.
Chaka, C., 2015a. Digital identity, social presence technologies, and presence learning. In: R. D. Wright, ed. 2015. Student-
teacher interaction in online learning environments. Hershey, PA.: IGI Global. pp. Ch.9.
Chaka, C., 2015b. Personal mobile cloud computing affordances for higher education: One example in South Africa. In: N.R.
Rao, ed. 2015. Enterprise management strategies in the era of cloud computing. Hershey, PA.: IGI Global. Ch.4.
Chaka, C., 2015c. Textisms, grammatical features, and sentence types in the SMS and IM paragraphs of EFAL learners. Per
Linguam, 31(3), pp 65-85.
Chaka, C. 2019a. Skills, competencies and literacies attributed to 4IR/Industry 4.0: Scoping review. IFLA Journal, [e-journal]
XX(X), pp.1-33. doi: 10.1177/0340035219896376
Chaka, C. 2019b. Re-imagining literacies and literacies pedagogy in the context of semio-technologies. Nordic Journal of
Digital Literacy, [1e-journal] 4(1-2), pp.53-68. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2019-0102-05
Chaka, C. 2020. Online polylogues and the speech acts of online discussion forums. Journal of Educators Online, 17(2).
Available at: https://www.thejeo.com/archive/2020_17_2/chaka
Chaka, C. and Nkhobo, T. 2019a. Online module login data as a proxy measure of student engagement: The case of
myUnisa, MoyaMA, Flipgrid, and Gephi at an ODeL institution in South Africa. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, [e-journal] 16(1), article #38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0167-9
Chaka, C. and Nkhobo, T. 2021. The use of a virtual personal assistant (FENNChat) as a platform for providing automated
responses to ODL students’ queries at UNISA. In Auer, M. E. & Tsiatsos, T. (Eds.), Internet of Things, Infrastructures
and Mobile Applications, Proceedings of the 13th IMCL Conference (pp. 289-296). Cham: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49932-7_28.
Chaka, C., Lephalala, M., and Ngesi, N. 2017. English studies: Decolonisation, deparochialising knowledge and the null
curriculum. Perspectives in Education, [e-jounal] 35(2), pp.208-229.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v35i2.16

Chadha, A., 2017. Comparing student reflectiveness in online discussion forums across modes of instruction and levels of
courses. Journal of Educators Online. Available at: <https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1150706.pdf> [Accessed 30
March 2019].
Cohen, J., 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), pp.37-
46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
Crosslin, M. 2016. From instructivism to connectivism: theoretical underpinnings of MOOCs. Current Issues in Emerging
eLearning, [e-journal] 3(1), pp.84-102. article# 6. Available at: http://scholarworks.umb.edu/ciee/vol3/iss1/6
del Valle García Carreño, I., 2014. Theory of connectivity as an emergent solution to innovative learning strategies.
American Journal of Educational Research, [e-journal] 2(2), pp.107-116. doi:10.12691/education-2-2-7
Dennen, V.P., and Hao, S., 2014. Intentionally mobile pedagogy: The M-COPE framework for mobile learning in higher
education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(3), pp.397-419.
Downes, S., 2010. New technology supporting informal learning. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence, [e-
journal] 2(1), pp.27-33. https://doi.org/10.4304/jetwi.2.1.27-33
Etikan, I., Musa, S.A. and Alkassim, R.S., 2016. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American
Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), pp.1-4. doi:10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Farley, H., Murphy, A., Johnson, C., Carter, B., Lane, M., Midgley, W., Hafeez-Baig, A., Dekeyser, S. and Koronios, A., 2015.
How do students use their mobile devices to support learning? A Case study from an Australian regional university.
Journal of Interactive Media Education, [e-journal] 1(14), pp.1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/jime.ar
Fereday, J. and Muir-Cochrane, E., 2006. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and
deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, [e-journal] 5(1), pp.80-92.
Ferreira, J.G. and Venter, E. 2011. Barriers to learning at an ODL institution. Progressio, [e-journal] 33(1), pp.80-93.
Griffee, D.T., 2012. An introduction to second language research methods: Design and data. Available at: <http://www.tesl-
ej.org/pdf/ej60/sl_research_methods.pdf> [Accessed 7 February 2019].
Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R. and Mills, J. 2017. Case study research: Foundations and methodological orientations.
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, [e-journal] 18(1), article #19. http://nbn-
resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1701195.
Hew, K.F., Cheung, W.S. and Ng, C.S.L., 2010. Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: A review of the
research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, [e-journal] 38(6), pp.571-606. doi:10.1007/s11251 -008-
9087-0
Karsenti, T. and Collin, S., 2012. Using IT for distance learning: Benefits and challenges for African learners. Formation et
profession, [e-journal] 20(2), pp.9-18. doi:10.18162/fp.2012.178
Kop, R. and Hill, A., 2008. Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, [e-journal] 9(3), pp.1-13.
Lai, C-H., Lin, H-W., Lin, R-M. and Tho, P.D.2019. Effect of peer interaction among online learning community on learning
engagement and achievement. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, [e-journal] 17(1), pp.66-77.
doi: 10.4018/IJDET.2019010105
Laru, J., 2012. Scaffolding learning activities with collaborative scripts and mobile devices. Available at:
<http://jultika.oulu.fi/Record/isbn978-951-42-9940-7> [Accessed 10 February 2019].
Liebenberg, H., Chetty, Y. and Prinsloo, P., 2012. Student access to and skills in using technology in an open and distance
learning context. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, [e-journal] 3(4), pp.250-268.
Lillejord, S., Børte, K., Nesje, K. and Ruud, E., 2018. Learning and teaching with technology in higher education - A
systematic review. Available at:
<https://www.forskningsradet.no/servlet/Satellite?c=Rapport&cid=1254035409750&lang=no&pagename=kunnskap
ssenter%2FHovedsidemal> [Accessed 20 February 2019].
Luskin, B., 2016. New over-the-top technologies (OTT) using social media offer new opportunities. Available at:
<https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-media-psychology-effect/201611/converging-advances-in-online-
learning-ott-oer-and-oei> [Accessed 20 February 2019].
Ludwig-Hardman, S. and Dulap, J.C. 2003. Learner support services for online students: scaffolding for success.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, [e-journal] 4(1), p.1-15.
Maboe, K.A., 2017. Use of online interactive tools in an open distance learning context: Health studies students’
perspective. Health SA Gesondheid, [e-journal] 22, pp.221-227.
Mason, J., 2002. Qualitative researching. London: Sage.
Mathew, I.R. and Ebelelloanya, J., 2016. Open and distance learning: Benefits and challenges of technology usage for online
teaching and learning in Africa. Available at: <http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/2543> [Accessed 20 February 2019].
McLoughlin, C. 2002. Learner support in distance and networked learning environments: Ten dimensions for successful
design. Distance Education, [e-journal] 23(2), pp.149-162. doi: 10.1080/0158791022000009178
Minnaar, A. 2011. Student support in e-learning courses in higher education – insights from a metasynthesis “A pedagogy
of panic attacks.” Africa Education Review, [e-journal] 8(3), pp.483-503.
https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2011.618664
Ng’ambi, D., Brown, C., Bozalek, V., Gachago, D. and Wood, D., 2016. Technology enhanced teaching and learning in South
African higher education – A rearview of a 20 year journey. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(5), pp. 843–
858. doi:10.1111/bjet.12485

North-Samardzic, A., Braccini, A.M., Spagnoletti, P. and Za, S., 2014. Applying media synchronicity theory to distance
learning in virtual worlds: A design science approach. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, [e-journal] 15
(3), pp. 328-346
Oh, C. S., Bailenson, J. N. and Welch, G. F. 2018. A systematic review of social presence: definition, antecedents, and
implications. Systematic Review, [e-journal] 5, pp.1-35. Article# 114. doi 10.1007/s10648-007-9042-7
Omair, A. 2015) Selecting the appropriate study design for your research: Descriptive study designs. Journal of Health
Specialties, [e-journal] 3(3), pp.153156. doi: 10.4103/1658-600X.159892
Palinscar, A. S. 1998. Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh – A response to C. Addison Stone’s “The metaphor of
scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities”. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, pp.370-373.
Puntambekar, S. and Hübscher, R. 2005. Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: what have we
gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, [e-journal] 40(1), pp.1-12.
Ponelis, S.R., 2015. Using interpretive qualitative case studies for exploratory research in doctoral studies: A case of
Information Systems research in small and medium enterprises. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, pp.
535-550. Available at: <http://ijds.org/Volume10/IJDSv10p535-550Ponelis0624.pdf> [Accessed 20 February 2019].
Resta, P. and Laferrière, T. 2007. Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, [e-
journal] 19, pp.65-83. doi 10.1007/s10648-007-9042-7
Rezigalla, A.A. 2020. Observational study designs: Synopsis for selecting an appropriate study design. Cureus, [e-journal]
12(1), e6692. doi 10.7759/cureus.6692
Roy, D. 2007. Presence in Labyrinth (Mastery and the mobile future of massively multiplayer games). Available at:
<http://crossgamer.com/thesis/chapter3> [Accessed 16 July 2017].
Ryan, Y. 2008. Pushing the boundaries with online learner support. In: J.E. Brindley, C. Walti and O. Zawacki-Richter, eds.
2008. Learner support in open, distance and online learning environments. Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag der. Ch.10.
Setia, M.S. 2016. Methodology series module 3: Cross-sectional studies. Indian Journal of Dermatology, [e-journal] 61,
pp.261-264. doi: 10.4103/0019-5154.182410
Sharma, G., 2017. Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. International Journal of Applied Research, [e-journal]
3(7), pp749-752.
Siemens, G., 2005. Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and
Distance Learning, 2(1), pp. 3–10.
Simpson, O. 2002. Supporting students in online, open and distance learning. 2nd ed. London: Kogan Page.
Spacey, J., 2017. Pull vs push technology. Available at: <https://simplicable.com/new/pull-vs-push-technology> [Accessed
10 March 2019].
Stake, R.E., 2005. Qualitative case studies. In: N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, eds. 2005. The Sage handbook of qualitative
research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 443–466.
Suárez, Á., Ternier, S., Prinsen, F. and Specht, M., 2016. Nurturing communities of inquiry: A formative study of the DojoIBL
platform. In: K. Verbert, M. Sharples and T. Klobučar, eds. Adaptive and adaptable learning: EC-TEL 2016. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9891.. Cham: Springer. pp.292-305. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45153-4_22
Suárez, Á., Specht, M., Prinsen, F., Kalz, M. and Ternier, S., 2018. A review of the types of mobile activities in mobile
inquiry-based learning. Computers & Education, [e-journal] 118, pp.38-55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.004
Sung, T., Chang, K-E. and Liu, T-C., 2016. The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students'
learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education, [e-journal] 94, pp. 252-275.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008
Tait, A. 2014. From place to virtual space: Reconfiguring student support for distance and e-learning in the digital age.
Open Praxis, [e-journal] 6(1), pp.5-16. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.6.1.102
TeachThought Staff., 2018. 12 of the best learning apps for 2018. Available at:
<https://www.teachthought.com/technology/12-of-the-best-learning-apps-for-2018/> [Accessed 10 March 2019].
Thorpe, M. 2002. Rethinking learner support: The challenge of collaborative online learning. Open Learning, 7(2), pp.105-
119.
Thomas, G. and Myers, K., 2015. The Anatomy of the case study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thomas, M. and Gelan, A., 2018. Editorial: Special edition on language learning and learning analytics. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, [e-journal] 31(3), pp. 181-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1447723
Thubakgale, K. and Chaka, C., 2016. Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners’ written work. Language
Matters: Studies in Languages of Africa, 47(2), pp.75-97.
Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Wang, M., Chen, Y. and Khan, M. J., 2014. Mobile cloud learning for higher education: a case study of Moodle in the cloud.
The International Review of Research in open and Distance Learning, 15(2), pp. 254–267.
Wertsch, J.V. 1984. The zone of proximal development: some conceptual issues. New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development, 23, pp.7-18.
Wood, D., Bruner, J.S. and Ross, G. 1976. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 17(2), pp.89-100.
Yin, R.K., 2014. Case study research and design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zawacki-Richter, O. 2008. The growing importance of support for learners and faculty in online distance education. In: J.E.
Brindley, C. Walti and O. Zawacki-Richter, eds. 2008. Learner support in open, distance and online learning
environments. Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag der. Ch.4.

Leveraging Moya, Whatsapp and Online Discussion Forum To Support Students at An Open and Distance E-Learning University

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leveraging Moya, Whatsapp and Online Discussion Forum To Support Students at An Open and Distance E-Learning University

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leveraging MoyaMA, WhatsApp and Online Discussion Forum to

Support Students at an Open and Distance e-Learning University

Chaka Chaka, Tlatso Nkhobo and Mirriam Lephalala

2. Statement of the problem

www.ejel.org 495 ISSN 1479-4403

www.ejel.org 496 ©ACPIL

Figure 1: A screenshot of Moya Messenger App, WhatsApp and myUnisa.

www.ejel.org 497 ISSN 1479-4403

www.ejel.org 498 ©ACPIL

www.ejel.org 499 ISSN 1479-4403

www.ejel.org 500 ©ACPIL

Figure 2: A screenshot of a topic given to participants on Moya

www.ejel.org 501 ISSN 1479-4403

Step 1: Developing a Coding Framework/Code Manual

Step 2: Identification of Initial Themes

Step 3: Identification of Final Themes

Step 4: Establishing theoretical constructs

www.ejel.org 502 ©ACPIL

www.ejel.org 503 ISSN 1479-4403

Figure 6: Further clarification of the Moya activity

www.ejel.org 504 ©ACPIL

Figure 8: Sample essay 1

www.ejel.org 505 ISSN 1479-4403

Figure 9: Sample essay 2

Figure 10: Sample essay 3

www.ejel.org 506 ©ACPIL

Figure 11: Sample essay 4

Figure 12: Sample discussion forum message

www.ejel.org 507 ISSN 1479-4403

www.ejel.org 508 ©ACPIL

www.ejel.org 509 ISSN 1479-4403

www.ejel.org 510 ©ACPIL

8. Limitations and recommendations

www.ejel.org 511 ISSN 1479-4403

www.ejel.org 512 ©ACPIL

www.ejel.org 513 ISSN 1479-4403

www.ejel.org 514 ©ACPIL

www.ejel.org 515 ISSN 1479-4403

You might also like